Chevy S-10 Gas mileage

here are some specs i forgot:

5 speed manual 2.5L fuel injected 2WD (rear wheel drive)

Something seems off, I had a 1988 2.5L 5 speed manual 4x4 and could hit close to 30mpg. How many miles? Has the plugs/wires/cap been changed ever? How about the 02 sensor?

That truck, with stock diff'l., has approx. 4.10:1 gearing; and with the cutdown wheelsize, 12-inch you stated, that'd be another cut to like (stock

15-" are like 26 " tall with tires, so 12-" would be about 20" tall) 26/20 X 4.10 = 5.33:1 gearing. No wonder the mileage is so down. Try standard 15" wheels with about 25-26" tall when mounted with tires. Mileage should dramatically increase. If gas mileage were directly proportional to final drive ratio(which it realy isn't, altho' in that direction), 26/20 would be 1.3 times the mileage you are now getting, or 26. HTH, s

12" wheels? On an S series? WHY? It sure didn't come that way. Check the door stick and you'll probably find a 205 - 75 - 15 as the stock tire.

Buy a used moped and store it in the box when not in use. My 96 2.2 gets

17/18 in town and up to 23 on the road.

Bob

aight ill admit im new to cars and trucks, the wheel being 12" was me measuring the radius of the wheel and tire combined. wheel itself is

14" (24" measuring from ground to top).

and in answering a couple of the questions, it only has 51k miles on it, i have no idea about the plugs/wire or cap, and i know less aobut the 02 sensor. the inside of my door reads a 195 - 75 - 14 (actually P195 / 75 R14 ) and the rims 14x6JJ.

Used Toyota or Pre 2000 VW are your best options for 4 wheels. GM, Ford, etc. all have tech for high gas mileage and safe vehicles that run on bonafide gasoline. But US wants tanks, not cars. Your kids will pay for it.

'Cause it looks "cool", Steve. Today's car enthusiasts are much more about how it looks than about how it functions.

Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Snore..... Burp. You really need to come up with a better assault than that, against the American automotive industry. Some of the long lasting design issues might be a good one, but the "tanks" line is quite irrelevant. Maybe a trip to any GM or Ford dealer would be enlightening for you.

A simple measure of vehicle weight, engine displacement, and unneeded power eating gas mileage is all I need. We were talking about an older S-10. "89 chevy s10 pickup" which you conveniently snipped out. Even today's "high mileage" GM vehicles are do not really contend that well. Which apparently where you were going. Especially since such gas mileage has been available for 2 decades at least. Very loud yawn........ (tit for tat) But that wasn't the thread topic, so am not going down your limited view of the world, later dude/dudette.

LOL. I think he meant 12" rims, not wheel and tire over-all diameter.

So... in what way was the '89 S-10 the tank that you refered to? As a truck for its time it was far superior to any Toyota entry. Your original statement that the OP would be better served with a used Toyota or a pre-2000 VW showed your intent to do nothing more than to throw out tired old lines designed to slam GM irrespective of their accuracy.

Tit for tat is fair game, but I don't see where it's applicable to this discourse. You're back pedaling now. You're going from "tanks" to performance that has been available for 20 years. Try to stay on track. The only one going down limited views is you. Your tank comment had nothing to do with the original post, rather it was the tired old line thrown out by those with a bend toward Toyota. Toyotas are fine vehicles and a preference for them is fine as well, but droids who simply drone on with the same old irrelevant dribble should not suggest others have a limited view.

Drivng strictly highway at 55 mph I have been able to milk 29.5 mpg out of my '03 2.2L S-10. Usually get 27-28 at 60 and below. If I drive 65-70 mph the mpg drops to 24-25 mpg highway.

Increased speed and head winds seem to make a significant difference in the mpg of this model/engine combo.

Jim

Thanks, Sarge. My figures assumed the 12-inch wheels had an overall tire height of 20 inches. ("...so 12-" would be about 20" tall..."). But you and I both wonder even about 12-inch WHEELS, huh? Must've come off Chrysler's new 'smart car'!? s

Spyder, I wouldn't be surprised if it got better mileage with 26"-tall tires, same width (NOT a wide-tread design). But remember to multiply odometer mileage driven by 26/24, as the taller tire moves the pkp further than the shorter tire for each revolution; and revolutions driven are what ultimately read out as miles driven. Do same with speedometer's reading of MPH. Not a whole lot of difference, but about 8% increase in both distance and speed. s

Yeah, 12" rims do seem a tad on the small side. I suppose if they were fairly wide rims and had big semi knobby tires with gobs of sidewall.... but I think that probably is getting a bit far from the truth.